The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1887-06-23
AN ATTORNEY IN TEARS.
LAWYER BRlGHTS FEELINGS
OVERCOME HIM.


Tears as Shield for Hard Questions
Pertinent Testimony of the Attorney
for the Broadway Surface Road-Un-
raveling the Tangled Skein - Sharp
Beginning to Look Gloomy.
New York, June 2-In the Sharp trial
this morning, the cross-examination of
ex-Alderman Waite was continued.
While Waite was under the cross-exam-
ination, ex-Alderman Miller, another of the
boodlers, was led into court by Detective
Schuyler to be in readiness to appear as the
next witness
A BATTLE OF WITS.
Mr.. Bright, counsel to the Broadway Sur
face road, was recalled. He testified that the
scheme of the proposed road was submitted
to his firm by Messrs Sharp and Forshay,
and was elaborated by them. He drew the
mortgage to secure the bonds. After a con-
sultation with his client he refused to dis
close his clients name, but said it was not
Mr.. Sharp. There was no attempt at con-
cealment on the part of their clients. Mr..
Bright admitted that he prepared the report
of the Railroad Committee of the Board of
Aldermen on the Broadway franchise, and
also the resolutions offered by the commit
tee granting the franchise. The report was
prepared before the committee concluded its
hearing on the subject and was sent
by them to holoney by messenger.
Questioned about the Lyddy injunction,
Mr. Bright said he went to Judge Bart
lett's house in Brooklyn at 8 o'clock of the
night preceding the morning meeting of the
Aldermen at which the franchise was
granted, and obtained from him an order
dissolving it, Mr.. Lyddy having consented
to its dissolution. The dissolution of the
injunction restraining the Aldermen from
any action on the matter was prepared by
the witness.
A LAWYERS PREDICAMENT.
Mr.. Bright here begged he might not be
forced to say anything about his converse
ton with Judge Bartlett. He was put in
the most disagreeable position a lawyer
could be placed in by the question, as it
necessarily arrayed him against a Judge
of the Supreme Court. He begged
Mr. Nicoll not to press for an answer,
and appeared greatly affected. Mr.. Nicoll
said he was compelled to demand a reply
Mr. Bright then said that Judge Bartlett
expressed the opinion that the Injunction
should never have been granted, and ques-
toned the right of the court to enjoin a
legislative body. He either hinted or men
men the next morning. He had a second
interview with Judge Bartlett about year
ago in his chambers in Brooklyn, the wit
ness having heard that District Attorney
MARITIME had criticised his professional CON
duct in the matter of the bonds as well as
the matter of the Lyddy injunction. He
called on Mr.. MARITIME and told him his
recollection of his application to Judge
Bartlett. Mr. MARITIME remarked that Judge
Ra t. 1atf n an
tirely different.
MR.. BRIGHT's TEARS.
At this point the witness became so
affected as to be unable to speak for several
minutes, and when he resumed the tears
were running down his cheeks He said
that Judge Bartlett was pleased to see him.
and they talked over what had occurred
when the order had been asked for Judge
Bartlett said had he known of the early
morning meeting, he would never. have
signed the order, and he said he was much
dspleased that Mr.. Bright had not told him.
They parted in friendly manner The
witness gave the order he had obtained to
Waite, and was in the City Hall while the
morning meeting was in session. When it
was over ne obtained a certified copy of the
resolution overriding the Mayors veto.
MR.. BRIGHTs MEMORY REFRESHED.
Mr. Bright resumed the stand after the
recess and said that he was willing to con-
suit his books to refresh his memory. He
then identified various documents relating
to the Broadway road, among them the
resolution prepared in his office find
ing fault with the Mayor for vetoing
the franchise The court directed the wit
ness to answer the question asked him earlier
in the day, as TO whom he met on the morn
ing of the eventful Aldermenc meeting
The witness said he met Mr.. Richmond
and went with him to the City Hall
where Mr.. Maloney told them the franchise
had been passed over the veto. In explain
ing his firms relations with Mr.. Maloney he
said they only knew him as the clerk of the
Railroad Committee; nothing ever passed
between them except what they thought
right and proper. He visited their Office
openly and without any concealment. The
witness knew of no reason why his Office
should be designated as the headquarters Of
the conspiracy to bribe the Aldermen of
1884, nor why himself and Mr. Scribner
should be pronounced members of that con-
spiracy. Neither be nor his firm, he said,
had anything to do with the call for the
early morning meeting Of the Aldermen.
A CLERKS RECOLLECTION.
Robert Z. Bowling, a clerk in Robinson,
Scribner g. Bright's Office, testified that
on Aug. 5, the day of the meeting of the
railroad committee, Mr.. Sharp sent him
with paper of some kind to give to Mr..
Richmond for Mr. Ma!oney. Mr. Richmond
told him to deliver it himself Mr. Sharp
had told him not to allow anyone to see him
giving the paper to Mr.. Richmond.
DOODLE IN LARGE BILLS.
Mr. Miller, who was a member of the
Railroad Committee of the Board of Alder
men of 1884, was then called and took the
stand. He testified that he voted for the
franchise, and Mr.. Nicoll then asked him il
he received anything after the meeting
from DeLacy, another q the ex-
Aldermen, who is now II Canada.
Mr.. Parsons objected. Mr.. " said
he proposed to show by the w IS that
after voting for the franchise he \eived
s., 600 in large bills from DeLacy, that
afterward, appreciating the factthS pad
done wrong, he returned tl1 my TO
DeLacy The question was allowed Md
Miller answered: ~ received 5000 from
DeLacy ,at his house after the passage Of the
franchise, in $780, $500 and $1,000 bills"
He afterward understood that the money
was paid him under some arrangement
made with the Aldermen and he went 20
n IL l. he iva ha